Oh, but it would have been so fitting!A man who gets way too much credit for stuff he had nothing to do with (LOST), directing movies from a series created by a man who gets way too much credit for the good installments in said series!

erttheking:Can someone tell me why the new Star Trek was shit again? I thought it was pretty good.

Mostly, the story made little sense (as another poster pointed out). Destroying Vulcan is beyond stupid, the lens flares were out of control, Nero was really just Shinzon, the Spock/Uhura thing was unwanted.

It was fun on it's own (the first time) but as a Trek movie, it simply doesn't measure up. The new timeline really comes down to this movie not meaning anything in the end. Which lore would a Trekkie prefer, the one with Vulcan that has been established over 4 decades or JJ's timeline? You can't have both.

erttheking:Can someone tell me why the new Star Trek was shit again? I thought it was pretty good.

Mostly, the story made little sense (as another poster pointed out). Destroying Vulcan is beyond stupid, the lens flares were out of control, Nero was really just Shinzon, the Spock/Uhura thing was unwanted.

It was fun on it's own (the first time) but as a Trek movie, it simply doesn't measure up. The new timeline really comes down to this movie not meaning anything in the end. Which lore would a Trekkie prefer, the one with Vulcan that has been established over 4 decades or JJ's timeline? You can't have both.

I am surprised Leonard Nimoy agreed to be in this movie.

It didn't seem that bad in terms of making sense. Guy with grudge against the federation travels into the past and starts blowing up planets. The lens flare aren't really that bad, I don't see the connection between the two, and I actually kinda liked that.

It feels like a fresh breath, and I don't see why both be canon. Isn't this the Star Trek universe where they go to the mirror dimension every five episodes? Can't it run on the DBZ time travel rules?

erttheking:Can someone tell me why the new Star Trek was shit again? I thought it was pretty good.

Mostly, the story made little sense (as another poster pointed out). Destroying Vulcan is beyond stupid, the lens flares were out of control, Nero was really just Shinzon, the Spock/Uhura thing was unwanted.

It was fun on it's own (the first time) but as a Trek movie, it simply doesn't measure up. The new timeline really comes down to this movie not meaning anything in the end. Which lore would a Trekkie prefer, the one with Vulcan that has been established over 4 decades or JJ's timeline? You can't have both.

I am surprised Leonard Nimoy agreed to be in this movie.

It didn't seem that bad in terms of making sense. Guy with grudge against the federation travels into the past and starts blowing up planets. The lens flare aren't really that bad, I don't see the connection between the two, and I actually kinda liked that.

It feels like a fresh breath, and I don't see why both be canon. Isn't this the Star Trek universe where they go to the mirror dimension every five episodes? Can't it run on the DBZ time travel rules?

"Guy with grudge wants to kill everyone" is a bad Trek story. Even JJ Abrams admits that the lens flares were out of control.

Trek has always used a reset button to make it clear which timeline is the correct one, this movie is in conflict with the canon. No, mirror dimension episodes are pretty rare in the grand scheme of hundreds of episodes.

I looked it up, there are 9 Mirror universe episodes out of 694 total episodes. Of the ones I remember, there is never any question of which timeline is real and which one isn't.

I liked the new Star Trek movie. It may not be true to the original Star Trek movie but they didn't intend to do that, they even said that it's not going to be like the old Star Trek. It wasn't aimed at Star Trek fans.

Anyway, at this point I have no idea at all whether it's going to be a good movie or not. It can't get much worse than the prequels and there are many director who could at least make a decent sequel but if he doesn't feel like he can, then that's fine. To many the franchise is dead anyway and I doubt that there are a lot of fans who have much hope in this, unlike back then with the prequels.I'm just really curious what Disney exactly intents to do with the franchise and how the movie will turn out.

Disregard the Star Wars fanboys hatred of Star Trek and the Star Trek fanboys hatred of lens flares and (depending on the style and theme of the script) JJ Abrams could have been a great choice. However, I'm still putting money on this being good because BILLIONS of dollars rely no this movie being good. Yes, if it is bad it will still make a lot of money but Disney spent 4 billion dollars on buying this franchise and they are looking to make thrice that in the long run, but if they mess this movie up they will be losing more than just some box office money. Fans will completely give up, that means they will give up on buying the games, buying the toys, buying the action figures, shit they will even give up on buying the Bobba Fett bed sheets. Its all or nothing so I'm guessing Disney is going to be pulling out all the stops.

Beryl77:I liked the new Star Trek movie. It may not be true to the original Star Trek movie but they didn't intend to do that, they even said that it's not going to be like the old Star Trek. It wasn't aimed at Star Trek fans.

I liked the 2009 Star Trek. It was flashy and fun and shallow, and that was all I wanted from it. I have only seen a few episodes of Star Trek, but my parents and several of my friends enjoyed it while still being fans of the original. Maybe it wasn't a great Star Trek movie, but it was still a good movie, in my opinion. Then again, I also thought Super 8 was good, so take that as you will.

Still, I'm fine with Abrams focusing on Star Trek. Honestly, I would kind of like to see some less well-known directors working on the Star Wars sequels, if only for variety's sake.

I say force him to do it, Kill off the abomination hes making out of the Trek franchise. The sooner TOS story arc is put to rest the better.

Actually for Wars... seeings how everyone else is throwing out directors.. I think I would like to see Danny Boyle's take on it. Sure it wont negate the cancer of the house of mouse. But it couldnt hurt after some of the things the new films have been lobbing around.

As someone who had never seen the original Star Trek in any incarnation at all (the 2009 film being my first exposure to the franchise), I thought the J.J. Abrams Star Trek film was brilliant, with well fleshed out characters, a decent enough plot, and it was well paced with solid directing (with the exception of the lens-flare porn).

Star Trek has always been about diplomacy, ethical dilemmas and new discoveries. It wasn't usually very violent, and frankly isn't a good source material for a Hollywood action movie. The JJ Abrams reboot was akin to a mediocre FPS remake of a beloved strategy franchise.

Sylveria:*Eye-roll* And the old-time Star Trek fans start raging. This may come as a shock, but the original Trek cast was TV pretty for their time and giant, rubber suits are not passable special effects 50 years later. Oh.. and there's young, attractive men and women in the space-military and they're letting their emotions and physical desires manifest? The hell you say? Good there our military is nothing but fat, ugly slobs who are certainly not attractive nor ever having sex. Who-ever heard of women finding a man in uniform sexy. I know I haven't. Kirk NEVER had sex with anything in the original series.

Obviously they should have had the original cast reprise their roles for this movie with the same budget and effects people they had in 1965. I'd love to see Nimoy and Nichols making out and Shatner banging some green chick. That'd be so hot.

Hey, Trekkies, appreciate what you got. At least your child-hood memories aren't in the hands of Michael Bay. I'd happily trade a little lens flare if it meant I didn't have to see Devastator's scrotum.

If that's all what you think consists of the Trekkies' complaints, you're either being disillusioned or disingenuous.

I was never a hardcore Trek fan. I had seen the movies and enjoyed a few of them, but never been really big into the TV show. And I too thought Trek '09 was bad. And it wasn't because it betrayed the values of Roddenberry's vision (although it did that too), it was because it was just terribly written.

Just as a couple of examples if you were even remotely trying to pay attention to the story: Kirk daddy needs to stay behind because the auto-pilot is broken. He then proceeds to have a 5 minute conversation w/ the missus in the middle of a firefight before going to the nav computer entering the coordinates and then sitting down to watch the ship auto pilot itself into destruction. Then Pine-Kirk is supposed to be 7-8 years late to Academy compared to Shatner-Kirk yet all of his crew, who had no time altering mishaps in their family histories, are all at the academy with him* (with one exception) and his first supervising Captain turns out to be the same guy on a ship that his alternate wouldn't get for another 6 years.

I know JJ was trying to make a point about destiny and whatnot but please.

It keeps the action pacing going, but even the action is pretty weak and uninteresting (how many times can Kirk get beat up and/or run away from things).

I can safely say I am excited by this news he won't be a part of this. I am saddened to find out that even tentative proposals were made, however.

*which also makes the whole Spock inventing the Kobayashi Maru scenario even more stupid.

I like the new Trek movie BUT it is waaay to action heavy for me. They are basically putting a scifi dressing on a standard adventure movie. The original series actually had a lot of hard scifi scripts. I hope they get some real scifi stuff going in the upcoming movie but I am not hopeful.

Sylveria:*Eye-roll* And the old-time Star Trek fans start raging. This may come as a shock, but the original Trek cast was TV pretty for their time and giant, rubber suits are not passable special effects 50 years later. Oh.. and there's young, attractive men and women in the space-military and they're letting their emotions and physical desires manifest? The hell you say? Good there our military is nothing but fat, ugly slobs who are certainly not attractive nor ever having sex. Who-ever heard of women finding a man in uniform sexy. I know I haven't. Kirk NEVER had sex with anything in the original series.

Obviously they should have had the original cast reprise their roles for this movie with the same budget and effects people they had in 1965. I'd love to see Nimoy and Nichols making out and Shatner banging some green chick. That'd be so hot.

Hey, Trekkies, appreciate what you got. At least your child-hood memories aren't in the hands of Michael Bay. I'd happily trade a little lens flare if it meant I didn't have to see Devastator's scrotum.

This man is on the money.. well said.

As someone who had never seen the original Star Trek in any incarnation at all (the 2009 film being my first exposure to the franchise), I thought the J.J. Abrams Star Trek film was brilliant, with well fleshed out characters, a decent enough plot, and it was well paced with solid directing (with the exception of the lens-flare porn).

Gotta disagree buddy. Nobody really cares how pretty everyone is. You can hardly even see it with two hours of lights being shined into your eyes. It's the poor story and the lack of anything even remotely close to real science OR Star Trek science that bugs me (yes, we all know there are differences, but just pick one). I've rarely heard anyone complain about the looks of the actors (other than Chris Pine looking like a douchebag), so I'm not really sure where your comment is coming from.

I've also got some family who loved the film who also enjoyed the original series. As I discussed the movie with them the problem we realized... they weren't paying attention. They didn't notice the comment about how a Supernova was destroying the entire galaxy rather than just the solar system. They didn't notice that the way that time travel + altering event doesn't translate to alternate universe in the old series, it meant the complete deletion and rewrite of the future.

There were all the little things too that they didn't notice. Vulcan has a moon now. Spock abandon's Kirk on an ice planet where he knows he is going to die (it's the Vulcan moon, remember? How could he not know of all the incredibly deadly creatures EVERYWHERE... and it's probably going to fall into that brand new black hole that was just created.) and Kirk "just happens" to run into Spock, they "just happen" to run into Scotty, he "just happens" to have developed a theory to beam them back to the Enterprise. It was a lack of actual thought and planning that was the problem. It was as if a bunch of eight year olds got into a room and went on a "this would be cool to see!" rant.

That is a huge plot hole. And it means that objectively, the entire story doesn't make sense. The entire thing is simply an illogical sequence of events that have no real relation to each other, and are nothing more than random sci-fi tropes thrown together in order to appeal to the 'geek' demographic.

That's just one of the issues with the plot. There are others as well, like:

The whole story is just an incoherent mess. If you shut your brain off, then yes it can be a bit of enjoyable fluff, but any actual thought about the plot shows that it has all the strength and consistency of wet tissue paper.

That's just the plot-holes. There is also the terrible dialogue, terrible direction (LENS FLARE EVERYWHERE) and utter lack of any of the moral/philosophical conundrums that typify the best of Trek...

In short, it was a plot-hole ridden mess that had nothing to do with Star Trek other than the names of the characters.

That is a huge plot hole. And it means that objectively, the entire story doesn't make sense. The entire thing is simply an illogical sequence of events that have no real relation to each other, and are nothing more than random sci-fi tropes thrown together in order to appeal to the 'geek' demographic.

That's just one of the issues with the plot. There are others as well, like:

The whole story is just an incoherent mess. If you shut your brain off, then yes it can be a bit of enjoyable fluff, but any actual thought about the plot shows that it has all the strength and consistency of wet tissue paper.

That's just the plot-holes. There is also the terrible dialogue, terrible direction (LENS FLARE EVERYWHERE) and utter lack of any of the moral/philosophical conundrums that typify the best of Trek...

In short, it was a plot-hole ridden mess that had nothing to do with Star Trek other than the names of the characters.

OT: I never really cared for the New Star Trek. Sure it is a decent eye candy, visceral, blockbuster action flick but it isn't really a Star Trek flick. Better than Baysformers but not as good as the first two Sam Raimi Spiderman movies if you know what I am gettng at.

Lets get someone like Fincher or Nolan (fuck you he is still awesome) to do it. Granted the last time Fincher did something sci-fi related it was Alien 3.

Abrams would've been an excellent choice for Star Wars. In the words of Red Letter Media; "J.J. Abrams should've directed the Star Wars prequels, and George Lucas should've directed people to their seats."

I'm not a big fan of his movies, but the guy has a Spielbergian flair to his directing which would've suited Star Wars greatly.

I quite liked the '09 Star Trek. It's not like the franchise was going anywhere, since it had basically bled to death by the time Enterprise was canceled. It was a well shot little space adventure movie. And I'm gonna be honest with ya, I liked the shiny iPod look of the whole movie.

A Fincher Star Wars movie would look something like this:1 hour of the Galactic Council being reconstituted30 minutes of the first Council meeting15 minute climax in which 2 key members are assassinated in some horrific fashion, random_jedi_hero_01 vivisects the assassins, and they die too quickly to give up any information.It would be loved by critics for adding depth to a franchise that had lacked any for soooo long but it would put fans to sleep. /yawn

In a series of films where flying around the sun can send you forwards or backwards in time, where a torpedo can suddenly turn bare rock into a whole ecosystem and all the other countless nonsensical plot lines the 2009 Star Trek fits right in. Thats not even starting with the TV series.